In this world we have to learn to connect the dots which many people fail to do.

The litigation was NOT incident to UA's ordinary course of business. The litigation is because UA chose to intentionally breach written "lifetime" promises made to a sub-group in the Mileage Plus program that achieved a goal that yielded lifetime benefits (Million-Mile Program).

Although Ernst & Young may not have intended that UA write the note as it was written, the note does say what it says and no one can reasonably or accurately say it doesn't.

You stated "Changes to the terms, conditions and benefits of Mileage Plus are in the ordinary course of UA's business."

You are correct in that statement with respect to the general frequent flier program.

However, when connecting the dots, you are ignoring the fact that UA went far past the ordinary course of UA's business when it chose, intentionally, to breach and ignore written promises made to a group of fliers that had complied with the requirements to make million-mile status and earn lifetime benefits.

Can you reasonably explain (with honesty) how the following screen shot, that was intentionally and knowingly breached by UA is "in the course of UA's business" unless UA's course of business includes being dishonest and in the business of intentionally breaching contracts?


-